Self-study
Letter to the editor: Middle-class families in wealthy nations are often criticized for the ecological damage resulting from their lifestyles. ████ █████████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █ █████ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ █ █████ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the criticism of middle-class families in wealthy nations for their ecological impact shouldn’t be taken too seriously. He supports this by saying that the criticism often comes from celebrities whose own lifestyles, if widely adopted, would quickly harm the environment and deplete resources.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of the argument rather than the argument itself. Here, the author attacks the celebrities who criticize middle-class families, pointing out that their lifestyles are harmful to the environment. However, he doesn't address the actual claim about middle-class families or provide any evidence for why it shouldn’t be taken seriously.
5.
The reasoning in the letter ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██
a
criticizes a characteristic ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██████
The author attacks the lifestyle of celebrities and movie stars who often criticize middle-class families, rather than addressing their criticism of middle-class families itself. He never actually provides any evidence for why that criticism should not be taken too seriously.
b
takes failure to ███ ████████████ ████ █ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████
The author never argues that the celebrities and movie stars do not sincerely hold the belief that middle-class families should be criticized for their lifestyles. Even if he did, (B) wouldn’t describe a flaw in his argument.
c
presumes that a █████████ ████ ██ ████████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a lack of support for a conclusion with proof that the conclusion is false. The author doesn’t make this mistake; he never addresses or attacks any support for the celebrities’ criticism.
d
fails to recognize ████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██████████
The author never provides any real evidence in support of his conclusion. The claim that celebrities’ lifestyles are environmentally damaging doesn’t support his conclusion, but it also doesn't undermine it.
e
generalizes about the ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █ ███
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The author doesn't make this mistake. He doesn’t generalize about the behavior of all people, he just claims that the criticism against middle-class families shouldn’t be taken too seriously.